Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/100123
|
| Title: | 論雄心──《論義務》I,61-92 |
| Other Titles: | On Magnitudo Animi —— De Officiis I,61-92 |
| Authors: | 徐學庸
Hsu, Hsei-Yung |
| Keywords: | 西塞羅;帕奈提烏斯;中期斯多葛學派;四樞德;雄心;柏拉圖;亞里斯多德
Panaetius;The Middle Stoics;Four Cardinal Virtues;Magnitudo Animi;Plato;Aristotle;Cicero |
| Date: | 2011-01 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-08-11 16:05:33 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 在古希臘倫理學思想中有所謂的四樞德的概念：智慧、勇氣、節制及正義。然而西塞羅《論義務》(De Officiis) 有言，所有的德行皆出自四個源頭：智慧、雄心（magnitudo animi 或 magnus animus）、節制及正義。比較這兩組德性清單，顯然西塞羅以雄心取代勇氣。在44 BC 11月寫給阿提庫斯的信中西塞羅說，《論義務》的前兩卷是以帕奈提烏斯 (Panaetius) 的《論合宜的行為》(Peri Kathēkontos) 的三卷書為基礎。這篇文章的目的是為了探究下述三個議題：第一、當帕奈提烏斯使用雄心 (megalopsuchia) 這個詞時，他有何想法？第二、帕奈提烏斯自言是柏拉圖及亞里斯多德的喜愛者，他的雄心的概念是否受這兩位哲學家的影響？第三、雖然西塞羅在《論義務》有言，他的敘述是緊隨帕奈提烏斯的論證，但我們依然可探究，將此希臘字譯為 magnitudo animi 的西塞羅，對雄心這個概念之內涵是否有其個人的貢獻，當他向其子證明此德性重要時。結論，簡言之，是：帕奈提烏斯的論證具有實踐意涵，且他使用雄心這個概念並未受到柏拉圖及亞里斯多德的影響；此外西塞羅個人為此概念提供新義。
It is well-known that in ancient Greek ethical thought there is the notion of the four cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice. However Cicero in De Officiis asserts that all virtuous actions stem from four origins, namely, wisdom, magnitudo animi (or magnus animus), moderation, and justice. It is clear that in the second list of the four cardinal virtues courage is replaced with magnitudo animi by Cicero. In a letter written to Atticus in November 44 BC, Cicero said that the first two books of De Officiis were based upon the three books of Panaetius’s Peri Kathēkontos. This paper serves to explore the following three problems: First, when Panaetius uses the term, megalopsuchia, what he has in mind? Second, Panaetius is a self-confessed lover of Plato and Aristotle. Is his idea of megalopsuchia influenced by these two philosophers? Third, although Cicero in De Officiis says that he follows closely Panaetius’s argument, yet we could look into the fact whether Cicero himself, who translates the Greek term into magnitudo animi, has his own contributions to the idea, when he demonstrates its importance to his son. To state the conclusion of this paper briefly: Panaetius’s argument has its practical import, and his idea of megalopsuchia is not the result of Plato’s and Aristotle’s influences, and Cicero, though under the influence of Panaetius, has his own contributions to the idea. |
| Relation: | 政治大學哲學學報, 25, 101-134
The national Chengchi university philosophical |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [政治大學哲學學報 THCI Core] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 25-101-134.pdf | 571Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 192 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
